Perspective - Not all calories created equal
Options
Replies
-
JenniferIsLosingIt wrote: »
Then why do you feel physically better when you eat the better food if a calories is a claroie? I mean absolutely no disrespect. To ME food is fuel, and the better fuel you use in your body the better it performs. So does that mean if I eat 1500 calories of crap it is just as good to my body fuel or energy wise as nutrient packed food?
Once again I am not being snarky or anything. I just need to understand this better.
Because you're comparing two different things.
Calories just measure the 'quantity' of the fuel, not the content.
To use an analogy, you can fill your car up with 20 gallons (ie calories) of regular unleaded gasoline, or you can fill it up with 20 gallons of premium fuel.
The gallons (ie calories) are the same in either case.
Performance may or may not be different, and is dependent on the content of the fuel.0 -
JenniferIsLosingIt wrote: »A calorie is a calorie. Just like a inch is an inch and a centimeter is a centimeter. What material you're MEASURING may be different though.
Lots of foods offer more VOLUME and NUTRIENTS per calorie than others, but if you're going to compared 300 calories of a wrap and 300 calories of a donut, it's still 300 calories to the body in terms of energy.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Then why do you feel physically better when you eat the better food if a calories is a claroie? I mean absolutely no disrespect. To ME food is fuel, and the better fuel you use in your body the better it performs. So does that mean if I eat 1500 calories of crap it is just as good to my body fuel or energy wise as nutrient packed food?
Once again I am not being snarky or anything. I just need to understand this better.
Yes, food is fuel, but your analogy to fuel is flawed. The argument isn't whether or not that "good" fuel will make you better, and "bad" fuel will make you worse, in your analogy, calorie is just equal to "fuel". Is it fuel or not? Yes. It's fuel. Fuel = Calorie. The nutrition or the "quality" of the fuel doesn't change that a calorie is still a calorie.
in my opinion of course.
Ok. I guess I am really just one of those more bang for my buck kind of people lol! I totally want more food for lesscalories! Probably why I am a major veggie addict!
Its all good I guess. 0 -
JenniferIsLosingIt wrote: »
Then why do you feel physically better when you eat the better food if a calories is a claroie? I mean absolutely no disrespect. To ME food is fuel, and the better fuel you use in your body the better it performs. So does that mean if I eat 1500 calories of crap it is just as good to my body fuel or energy wise as nutrient packed food?
Once again I am not being snarky or anything. I just need to understand this better.
I feel no different after eating my lunch of salmon, cottage cheese and asparagus, vs when I head to McDonalds later today for ice cream and fries (dipping McDs fries into their ice cream is pure awesome). At the end of the day I'm hitting my calorie and macro targets and go to bed feeling great 0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »JenniferIsLosingIt wrote: »
Then why do you feel physically better when you eat the better food if a calories is a claroie? I mean absolutely no disrespect. To ME food is fuel, and the better fuel you use in your body the better it performs. So does that mean if I eat 1500 calories of crap it is just as good to my body fuel or energy wise as nutrient packed food?
Once again I am not being snarky or anything. I just need to understand this better.
I feel no different after eating my lunch of salmon, cottage cheese and asparagus, vs when I head to McDonalds later today for ice cream and fries (dipping McDs fries into their ice cream is pure awesome). At the end of the day I'm hitting my calorie and macro targets and go to bed feeling great
I do. I feel like crap when I eat crap food. For me, the quality of the food is just as important as the number of calories.0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »JenniferIsLosingIt wrote: »
Then why do you feel physically better when you eat the better food if a calories is a claroie? I mean absolutely no disrespect. To ME food is fuel, and the better fuel you use in your body the better it performs. So does that mean if I eat 1500 calories of crap it is just as good to my body fuel or energy wise as nutrient packed food?
Once again I am not being snarky or anything. I just need to understand this better.
I feel no different after eating my lunch of salmon, cottage cheese and asparagus, vs when I head to McDonalds later today for ice cream and fries (dipping McDs fries into their ice cream is pure awesome). At the end of the day I'm hitting my calorie and macro targets and go to bed feeling great
I do. I feel like crap when I eat crap food. For me, the quality of the food is just as important as the number of calories.
I'm the opposite-I can't think of any foods that make me physically feel any different after eating them. I don't actually feel anything after I eat, regardless of what I've had, with the exception of not being hungry anymore. Interesting how we're all so different 0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I'd like to dispute the fact, after I looked up other such claims over other certain foods/drinks "boosting metabolism" or "taking more calories to digest than others" and so on
Please read the above. Neither I nor the studies referenced (and there are dozens more out there) make the claims you think I'm making.
We are talking about poop here.
More specifically, the amount of not fully digested and absorbed carbs and fats in the poop of those enjoying high fibre diets is higher than those who live on low fibre diets even though both consume the same base mix of carbs/fats/proteins and the same base caloric intake.
Put more simply, if it makes it out the other end undigested/unabsorbed, it's as if it wasn't there in the first place.
Bonus round: 30 - 40,000 kcal/year is a bunch of "free" beers (about 180 bottles).
Why are you going on so much about this? It's not an either/or proposition.
You presume that people who would eat a donut cannot also enjoy a fiber rich diet.
That's a false presumption.
Eh, for the average person who is overweight it's a pretty likely assumption (at least where I live in the USA). Of course if someone is eating a well balanced diet with plenty of veggies, protein, fiber, etc then choosing a donut instead of even more veggies is fine. But donuts don't provide the same nutrients that veggies do. Veggies provide have things like fiber, protein, antioxidants, etc that donuts lack.
AGAIN... why bring in outside people when we're here discussing among ourselves? I was talking about us, here on MFP. It's not fair, when one conscientious dieter is talking to other conscientious dieters who happen to eat donuts to bring in the strawman of people who eat SAD.
Muhahah, this means you have to give me all your donuts. All your donuts are belong to us.
<--- doesn't live in America, hasn't eaten SAD in 20 years.
<--- also can't find an effing decent donut in 700 km round.
Trust me, you wouldn't want a donut that I'd be able to eat. Gluten free donuts are the epitome of sadness and despair.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »How is this first study relevant - most of us here haven't had an ilesotomy.
3-4% between high and low? I'd assume that most people fall in the middle quintiles and see then only a variance of +\- 1-2%. Insignificant. Erased by homeostasis.
1. The ileostomy subject study is relevant as its data and conclusions confirm other fibre impact on excreted energy in subjects who don't have colon or rectal issues.
2. You are making an assumption that is incorrect, illustrating you didn't read the study or my comment on it very carefully.
Enjoy your doughnut.0 -
I love this discussion of the subjective "feels" after eating "crap".
I used to think l felt that way too.
You know what the real problem was? I feel that way when I eat too much, no matter what type of food I'm eating. The light bulb went off over my head one day a few years back when I noticed that I felt awful after gorging myself on hummus and carrots.
If I eat a normal portion, like one brownie or one cupcake? I feel perfectly fine.0 -
I feel really great after having a black bean salad or Greek yogurt and berries or grilled salmon or ahi tuna. I don't feel so good after eating a poor quality hamburger.
Psychological or physiological?
Don't know, don't care, I prefer to feel great.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »How is this first study relevant - most of us here haven't had an ilesotomy.
3-4% between high and low? I'd assume that most people fall in the middle quintiles and see then only a variance of +\- 1-2%. Insignificant. Erased by homeostasis.
1. The ileostomy subject study is relevant as its data and conclusions confirm other fibre impact on excreted energy in subjects who don't have colon or rectal issues.
2. You are making an assumption that is incorrect, illustrating you didn't read the study or my comment on it very carefully.
Enjoy your doughnut.
Walk me through this.
Exactly how does a study on people with an ileostomy confirm normal intestinal energy absorption? (Ileostomy patients tend to have intestinal absorption issues...)
How is my assumption incorrect? (And let's avoid the subtle ad hom on my reading skills, what next? My ESL level?).
Donut? Not even once. Can't get them here.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »I love this discussion of the subjective "feels" after eating "crap".
I used to think l felt that way too.
You know what the real problem was? I feel that way when I eat too much, no matter what type of food I'm eating. The light bulb went off over my head one day a few years back when I noticed that I felt awful after gorging myself on hummus and carrots.
If I eat a normal portion, like one brownie or one cupcake? I feel perfectly fine.
Agreed. I much prefer to not define foods as good or bad and avoid the psychological component that often goes with it. This way, I can feel awesome eating both yummy spring rolls and yummy donuts!
It's pretty much the ultimate win.
0 -
biggsterjackster wrote: »Read the OP's question: What kind of...... so my comparison was eggs which much more volume for 300 cal to a tiny bowl of sugary cereal for 300 ca. That's all. Sorry for the confusion, lol. And yes, I eat every day 4 eggs for breakfast.
Oh, okay.
I don't think that's a great example of the volume point, really. 4 eggs and 2 servings of oatmeal (a kind of cereal) have about the same calories, and are probably about the same volume, neither of which is particularly high.
I don't find just eggs especially filling (I find them about as filling as oatmeal on their own), but obviously if you do that's great. I think one important part of this is that people differ somewhat on what's filling.0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »JenniferIsLosingIt wrote: »
Then why do you feel physically better when you eat the better food if a calories is a claroie? I mean absolutely no disrespect. To ME food is fuel, and the better fuel you use in your body the better it performs. So does that mean if I eat 1500 calories of crap it is just as good to my body fuel or energy wise as nutrient packed food?
Once again I am not being snarky or anything. I just need to understand this better.
I feel no different after eating my lunch of salmon, cottage cheese and asparagus, vs when I head to McDonalds later today for ice cream and fries (dipping McDs fries into their ice cream is pure awesome). At the end of the day I'm hitting my calorie and macro targets and go to bed feeling great
I do. I feel like crap when I eat crap food. For me, the quality of the food is just as important as the number of calories.
If I eat an overall good diet eating a particular food item is unlikely to make me feel better or worse unless I have a psychological reaction to it. If I am regularly eating a poor diet, then yes I tend to feel worse.
I think some people are more sensitive to stuff like foods affecting blood sugar, but that's really a separate issue from food quality.
I'm never sure what people mean by "crap food," though. I try not to eat foods that strike me as "crap," but that doesn't mean that everything I eat is nutrient dense. I am kind of skeptical that it's actually common for physically healthy people to feel physically bad from eating a cookie or piece of pie or higher fat meat or whatever it is that people are claiming is "crap food," to be honest--I don't think human bodies are typically that selective in the foods that work for us.0 -
On the subject of eating food and its quality making you feel awful, I will share my shame with you, MFP.
The absolute worst I have ever felt from eating something?
I was doing Atkins at the time and had roasted an absolutely beautiful chicken. It was resting on the board, waiting to be carved.
I had strained the pan drippings and the separated fat was sitting there. I tasted it. It was delicious. I kept tasting it. And tasting it. And more. And more. In and in my spoon went. I don't know what came over me. I put back a LOT of that chicken fat. I felt awful almost immediately.
It was absolutely horrendous. Worse than any reaction I'd ever thought I'd had to sugar.
Quite possibly the stupidest thing I ever did with food.0 -
I feel really great after having a black bean salad or Greek yogurt and berries or grilled salmon or ahi tuna. I don't feel so good after eating a poor quality hamburger.
If I eat a poor quality anything I feel bad, because I wasted calories on something that did not taste that good.
I make burgers at home not infrequently (I usually don't get them out, because I usually like the ones I can make at home for fewer calories just as well) and feel great after eating them.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »biggsterjackster wrote: »Read the OP's question: What kind of...... so my comparison was eggs which much more volume for 300 cal to a tiny bowl of sugary cereal for 300 ca. That's all. Sorry for the confusion, lol. And yes, I eat every day 4 eggs for breakfast.
Oh, okay.
I don't think that's a great example of the volume point, really. 4 eggs and 2 servings of oatmeal (a kind of cereal) have about the same calories, and are probably about the same volume, neither of which is particularly high.
I don't find just eggs especially filling (I find them about as filling as oatmeal on their own), but obviously if you do that's great. I think one important part of this is that people differ somewhat on what's filling.
I didn't really have ostmeal in mind. I was thinking about these sugary cereals like Frostie's or Krave and all that stuff. I do eat oatmeal and yes, it is also very filling. But I think maybe it's just all that protein in eggs that keeps me full so long.0 -
http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=138936702&privcapId=113534397&previousCapId=113534397&previousTitle=MRC%20Human%20Nutrition%20Research
Hmmmm. Not according to Susan Jebb:
So people SHOULDN'T pay as much attention to fiber filled foods calories? That the calories on their are overestimated?stevencloser wrote: »For those who actually care about science as opposed to arguing about whose right on the internet:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296.abstract
As you can see, there can be a huge difference between calories listed and calories absorbed. So no, "300 calories" of a donut is not even remotely similar to "300 calories" of almonds.
39 calories is a huge difference now? When was the last time you filled half your day's calories with almonds to make it a significant amount?
You can argue all day about what defines a "huge difference." Over the course of a day, choosing a seemingly equally caloric amount of whole foods versus highly refined foods will lead a difference in calories absorbed that is significant over time.
Again, my understanding is that calories on labels are considered calories for metabolic use.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I'm sorry but your understanding is wrong. Calories on food lables are based on incineration with a small "across the board" correction factor for all types foods.But in fact, the losses are proportionately quite small. The calories that you see written on the back of a food pack have already had all of these adjustments made for the amount that will be digested and absorbed. And so, the calories you see on the packet is actually not the total calories in that food. It’s the so-called metabolisable energy, the amount of energy which is going to be available to the body.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/questions/question/2590/
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I don't know who Susan Jebb is but she's wrong. As I mentioned food calorie labels are based on the original Atwater incineration system with an "across the board" correction factor to it. The correction factor is 10% for all types of carbs, even though some should be 30% and some should be zero.
Dr. Susan Jebb serves as Head of Nutrition and Health at MRC Human Nutrition Research(HNR). Dr. Jebb leads the HNR Communications team who focus on the translation of nutrition science into policy and practice, working with policymakers, industry, health professionals, NGOs and the media across a broad range of activities. She serves as an Advisor to government on issues related to obesity and to nutrition. She serves on the FSA Food Policy Strategy Advisory Group. She was an Expert Advisor to the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit Review on Food.She serves as the Chairperson of the cross-government Expert Advisory Group on Obesity. She is a member of the Change4Life Board. Dr. Jebb trained in nutrition and dietetics. She holds her PhD at the MRC Dunn Nutrition Unit. Her research focuses on the role of dietary factors in the aetiology and treatment of obesity and its related metabolic diseases.
You should write to her and tell her she's wrong.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
I was shocked when I first saw a graphic representation of the volume of 400 calories worth of oil vs chicken, vs broccoli, in a human stomach. I still use oil, but I certainly measure it much more carefully than I did before.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions